What if it was not the Russians?

After Ashcroft recused himself, Fitzgerald was named Special Counsel to investigate --

".... the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity ..."
​

But Libby was not the person who disclosed this information.

Politically, what was really going on was the Dems wanted the head of Karl Rove. They despised him. Since so much time has passed, people these days tend to forget the hate the Dems and the media had at that time for both Rove and Bush. And they thought Fitzgerald would get him. The idea of Rove doing the perp walk was better than orgasm to Lefties. But, like Libby, Rove had leaked nothing.

The actual leaker was a guy named Richard Armitage. He claimed the leak was "inadvertent." The Dems liked Armitage, so he was never charged with anything.

Fitzgerald's grand jury was disbanded without ever indicting anyone for what Fitzgerald was charged to investigate.

The whole affair was rotten as Plame did not even qualify under the relevant statute.

 

I wrote about this yesterday as well.
No one seems to care.
Maybe they just have been conditioned to expect that our Govt is corrupt?

 

IMHO, this is the most amazing recent disclosure by far. A presidential candidate (not the sitting president or even employed by the gov) and members of her campaign team have access to classified information during an election cycle?

And while these non-government officials had continued classified access, classified information was being collected involving members of the opposing campaign. Seriously, no one is biting on this?

JF, I've also concluded the same...these corruptions and absurdities are so prevalent now they've forced a desensitized state. Well of course I'm referring to normal people, as the snowflakes are shocked at everything that threatens their participation trophies.

Five years ago an ISIS loyalist could shoot two store clerks in Indiana shouting the AA devotion, and Americans would be shocked and outraged. Now if that happened it would be a brief blip on the news and people would shrug thinking "only two people?".

 

Maybe it should have come up in the Benghazi hearings? This was the context for questioning her about the private email and server. I would like to think if I were one of the ones asking her the questions, I would have thought of this question. But who knows? Sometimes things that seem obvious are really only obvious once you know the answer.

When I watch contentious Congressional hearings, I always feel like I could do better with the questions. A couple of weeks ago, when they had Comey and Rogers before them, I was stating my questions for Comey out loud at the TV

-- You began an FBI Counterintelligenceto case of Trump at about the same time dropped the Clinton investigation?
-- How often do you brief the relevant Congressional Committees and the White House about FBI Counter Surveillance cases?
-- So President Obama knew by Sept you were surveiling Trump as he was running for President?
-- Did he order or even advise you to stop?
-- How did you carry on a counter-surveillance case of the Trump Campaign without surveillance? (It's a bit of a trick question but Comey had just claimed they did not wiretap Trump)

​

 

And none of this has anything to do with whether Libby broke the law.

 

Here is the original factual statement with which you claimed at the time you were disagreeing. This statement was and is still true

 

$7 million on multiple investigations. I'm sure you could have done it better.

 

And I'll go back to my previous statement. A jury and trial court judge that heard the evidence thought he did break the law.

 

Actually, your original statement was to suggest Flynn knew some "important information that's damning to someone higher up than he was but might have done something wrong himself and doesn't want to go to jail. That's the main purpose of an immunity deal."

I immediately challenged you to a wager on this claim of yours

You declined

 

On cross, probably

I would do the work for free too -- 3 hours with Hillary in the box under oath with a federal judge.
In fact, I would even pay out of my own pocket just for the chance

 

While Congress is full of attorneys, it is definitely not full of experienced trial attorneys. This is why someone like Trey Gowdy tends to stand out. It makes some sense if you think about it, why would a good trial attorney take a pay cut to join the Congress? Not to say being a Congressperson is a bad job, its not, its a good job relative to most jobs. But good trial skill is usually more than just a job, its a calling.

The best cross by a Congressperson I can think of was Arlen Specter of Anita Hill. It was textbook efficient. His problem was that he did not go far enough. By that time, he was already aware of all of the factual allegations that David Brock made in his famous American Spectator article (written back when Brock was still sane). But Senator Specter was afraid to go there. There were all sorts of racial allegations flying around at that time and I think he was scared off by all that noise (IIRC, the entire Senate panel was white, i.e., "bad optics"). It is too bad because Hill did perjure herself. Nonetheless, of the questions Specter did ask, he used great technique. It's a little funny now because many lefties still think Specter owed Hill an apology, but the truth is that he pulled his punches. And, sadly enough, it was the high point for the professional lives of both Specter and Brock. All downhill from there for them both.

The next most interesting one I can think of was Ollie North. The Dems thought they were going to have Reagan's head on that testimony. They were foaming at the mouth with glee. But none of the Dems on the committee had the balls to do it themselves. They were so skerred, they brought in an outsider to grill Ollie -- some New York trial attorney -- I forget his name. But North held up well, and turned the tables on them. They underestimated the strength of his conviction and loyalty. A mistake Dems often make sense they lacked the personal knowledge of such things.

 

I am surprised none of the usual posters have posted that many people who leave State etc retain their clearances. I see no reason anyone no longer working for the govt should have access to current classied or top secret material. I would also like to see a list of who currently does still have access,
None except Hillary have run our secrets through their own private server
Nor has anyone else run for POTUS

 

I declined, because I'm not a hack. I want the Russian investigation to turn up with nothing. I'll be disappointed if it does turn up with something.

But of course, none of this has anything to do with Scooter Libby.

 

I must be a hack.

 

The picture of Switzer made that obvious.

 

It seems some think Flynn is smarter than he's been acting. Maybe they are hoping?

 

I think Flynn is likely arrogant/cocky like many Generals/CEO's are. Those traits serve them well. His attorney is certainly smart. I think it was a sharp move to try to get him immunity regardless of what he had to say even if it does have poor optics. Flynn could get some relative BS charge as he does seem to have some "loose" financial arrangements with foreign gubmits. To me, at a minimum, those are some big block ethics violations but I'm not so sure how they're criminal.

 

heh

 

When youve lost Noam Chomsky ....

NOAM CHOMSKY: It’s a pretty remarkable fact that—first of all, it is a joke. Half the world is cracking up in laughter. The United States doesn’t just interfere in elections. It overthrows governments it doesn’t like, institutes military dictatorships. Simply in the case of Russia alone—it’s the least of it—the U.S. government, under Clinton, intervened quite blatantly and openly, then tried to conceal it, to get their man Yeltsin in, in all sorts of ways. So, this, as I say, it’s considered—it’s turning the United States, again, into a laughingstock in the world.​

 

Nunes recused himself.

 

lol

 

I think Ryan is the only person who can force him out
If so, I would rather the reverse happen

 

Per multiple reports, he recused himself to deal with multiple ethics complaints (D and R) from his clandestine visit to the White House a few weeks back.

 

Nunes recused himself from the Russia investigation, temporarily. It's being reported the recusal is from the Russia investigation. The Rice investigation is supposedly separate and he hasn't stated if he's recusing himself from that as well.

"Nunes’ announcement came as the House Ethics Committee released a statement disclosing that the committee was investigating public allegations that Nunes made unauthorized disclosure of classified documents.

This was a coordinated attack by left-wing groups against Nunes,” the source said. “As the Ethics Committee does its inquiry, he could not have other Republican committee members constantly having to defend him instead of focusing on the Russia investigation and particularly the abuse of intelligence through the improper unmasking of Americans’ names for political purposes.”

The recusal is temporary and as soon as possible, the chairman intends to resume full control of the committee as soon as the House Ethics Committee resolves the charges made by left-wing groups, the source said.

The source said Nunes hopes the Ethics Committee will work on his case during the Easter recess so the investigation can be wrapped up as soon as possible.

Capitol Hill conservatives are now watching to see if Nunes will also recuse himself from the probe into former national security adviser Susan Rice."

 

Wherever this article came from makes it sound like Nunes is the victim of a left-wing witchhunt. It's been reported that some R's joined in on the ethics complaints. Nunes clearly screwed up. Why is that hard to admit?

 

LOL! Flynn, Sessions and Nunes are out/recused because of their own actions. Nobody forced Flynn to lie to Pence. Nobody forced Sessions to lie or misstate his meetings with Kislyak to the Senate committee. Nobody forced Nunes to run to the White House to view the information they had then have a Press Conference on the WH lawn the next day before sharing the information he had with his fellow committee members. Each of these missteps was self inflicted and had nothing to do with any Democrats, other Republicans or the media.

 

Here is a Conway quote

"Putin hated Secretary Clinton so much that the flip side of that coin was that he had a clear preference for the person running against the person he hated so much," Comey said.

"Yeah, that might work on Saturday afternoon when my wife's Red Raiders are playing the Texas Longhorns," Conaway said. "She really likes the Red Raiders ... but the logic is that because [Putin] really didn't like ... candidate Clinton, that he automatically liked Trump. That assessment is based on what?"

"It's based on more than that, but part of it is ... the logic," Comey answered. "Whoever the Red Raiders are playing, you want the Red Raiders to win. By definition, you want their opponent to lose."
​

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/03/20/texans-interrogate-fbi-director-over-russian-hack/

 

Note the difference between Sessions and Loretta Lynch, who did not recuse herself from the Clinton private server scandal after meeting with Bubba on the Tarmac.